General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...


Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
about
the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was
demobilized at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately
failed to update his flight physical. Just one small difference.

Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.

Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings
expired.....I was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot
military aircraft. Your privileges expire when your physical
expires.....but you already knew that, and I'm surprised that you felt so
insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning when at least 99 of every
100 former military pilots could figure out exactly what I was talking about
from the words I used.

I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
statement was quite clear.

So, you're an Air Force pilot, is that it? Aren't you slipping an unwarranted
present tense assumption in there? You're no more an Air Force pilot than I
am.....that's what I used to be when I had a valid AF flight physical.
Nowadays, I'm only a former Air Force pilot, and that's exactly what you are as
well.



When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
strap on an F-16.

I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.

Like I said, 99 out of 100 former AF pilots knew what I meant from the words I
used. You seem to be the only one who feels a need to redefine my meanings from
my words. Maybe I'm misusing the word, but I call that "parsing" or maybe just
nitpicking an easily understood meaning.

George Z.

PS - During a momentary brain fart, I may have reposted a message without adding
any comments to it. My apologies for taking up your time looking at something
you'd already seen.

S. Sampson wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote

Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?

JFKerry:

Can you point me to the picture? I'd like to take a look. Thanks.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...


Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in
talking
about
the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was
demobilized at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he
deliberately
failed to update his flight physical. Just one small difference.

Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.

Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings
expired.....I was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot
military aircraft. Your privileges expire when your physical
expires.....but you already knew that, and I'm surprised that you felt
so
insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning when at least 99 of
every
100 former military pilots could figure out exactly what I was talking
about
from the words I used.

I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
statement was quite clear.

When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
strap on an F-16.

I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.



Ed Rasimus

George, that is probably the smartest thing you have managed to say in this
thread...nothing.

Brooks

"Presidente Alcazar" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:02:31 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for
a
ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
Queen's Orders.

Personally, I could care less what Hackworth has to say about
anything--IMO
he is a bit like James Dunnigan and Tom Clancy, in that he apparently
enamored with the sound of his own voice and impresses himself if nobody
else. But Paul, you do need to go back and check your facts--while
Clinton &
Company had indeed ruled out the ground option early on (rating as one of
his administration's bigger military mistakes--it was stupid to give
Milosevich the additional breathing room it afforded him), they did
subsequently revisit the issue, and they *did* announce that it was back
into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should
have
heard of at the time).

Agreed, but then this change was a direct result of a change in
context which included *British* pressure to reconsider the use of
ground troops. When it comes down to it, the British were pushing
earlier for committing a force on the ground if necessary, and were
putting their money where their mouth was. I should know, I was
getting prepped for mobilisation at exactly that time, and I knew
where I'd be going. So, while I take your point, talking about
"British timidity" over Kosovo is, frankly, ********. When it came
down to it, the British goverment were displaying more nerve and
willingness to do the business than the US adminsitration.

I did not say otherwise. Hackworth was off-base with his assessment (not an
unusual event), and I would agree that the British position was probably the
wiser one. My comments were directed at Paul's (again) ignoring the fact
that the US did indeed (belatedly) buy into the ground invasion as a real
option, and did indeed begin some obvious preparations for that eventuality.
I seriously doubt that Milosevich gave the ground threat much creedence
until he saw the US start accepting that possibility (not a jab at the UK,
but just common sense in that any ground invasion without US troops
participating was not a realistic threat).

Brooks

snip

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
S. Sampson wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote

Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?

JFKerry:

Can you point me to the picture? I'd like to take a look. Thanks.

George Z.

Try:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...ker_vc_flg.htm

Brooks

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:15 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Tom Cervo" wrote in message
...
On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who
worked
under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.


http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthr...9&perpage=25&h

He spells his name kind of funny--or does he have one? I'm not crazy about
everything Hackworth says but he stands by his words and admits his
mistakes.
Not signing your name means you don't have to do either.

I disagree. Hackworth delightedly attempted to publicly gore the then-CNO
ADM Boorda over a "V" device, then it was disclosed that Hackworth himself
was wearing and bragging about a Ranger Tab he had never actually earned--he
was a bit slow in 'fessing up to that one, and when he did it came out in
about the same words that he was so happily condemning Boorda for using
("Gee, I *thought* I was entitled to that..."). As far as I am concerned, he
is a pretty worthless source.


Hackworth evidently also had some nasty things to say about Michael
Durant while he was captive in Mogadishu. Durant in his book ("The
Company of Heroes") talks about being attacked by Hackworth for no
reason that he could figure out.

John Hairell )

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
S. Sampson wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote

Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?

JFKerry:

Can you point me to the picture? I'd like to take a look. Thanks.

George Z.

Doesn't appear it was an isolated incident, either--a couple more photos of
Kerry with his ribbon bedecked fatigues...

www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Oddly enough, despite getting three Purple Hearts, the photos of he and his
crew, one with decorations, don't show any apprent wounds to his right arm
(where he supposedly was wounded twice).

Brooks

"John Hairell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:15 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Tom Cervo" wrote in message
...
On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who
worked
under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.



http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthr...9&perpage=25&h

He spells his name kind of funny--or does he have one? I'm not crazy
about
everything Hackworth says but he stands by his words and admits his
mistakes.
Not signing your name means you don't have to do either.

I disagree. Hackworth delightedly attempted to publicly gore the then-CNO
ADM Boorda over a "V" device, then it was disclosed that Hackworth
himself
was wearing and bragging about a Ranger Tab he had never actually
earned--he
was a bit slow in 'fessing up to that one, and when he did it came out in
about the same words that he was so happily condemning Boorda for using
("Gee, I *thought* I was entitled to that..."). As far as I am concerned,
he
is a pretty worthless source.


Hackworth evidently also had some nasty things to say about Michael
Durant while he was captive in Mogadishu. Durant in his book ("The
Company of Heroes") talks about being attacked by Hackworth for no
reason that he could figure out.

I was unaware of that one. But it would be about par for him. Interesting
anti_hackworth article at:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2381/#Scene_1

Brooks


John Hairell )

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

I seriously doubt that Milosevich gave the ground threat much creedence
until he saw the US start accepting that possibility (not a jab at the UK,
but just common sense in that any ground invasion without US troops
participating was not a realistic threat).

Brooks

Your brain cancer is getting very bad now. Why don't you end it - use
a sharp knife.

Grantland

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:21:20 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
"useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)

Although I've come around to your sort of opinion towards
Hackworth, the "effectiveness" argument is sort of bogus
isn't it?

A muzzle loading, black powder Kentucky Rifle would be
"effective" under such a test, no?

According to Hackworth, who claims the Beretta, M-16 and other weapons
foisted on the indomitable GI by the military-industrial-complex and
the perfumed princes in the pentagon would simply break down before
performing such useful service. I think he was also against the
Abrams and the Bradley when they were the latest "steal procurement
from the grunts and waste it on high-tech pork" windmill... errr, I
mean project to be titled at.

Hasn't he become a caricature of himself these days? I always think
of him delivering Mr Burn's address to the electorate on the
Springfield hustings:

"And the bureaucrats in the state capital/perfumed princes in the
Pentagon can stick that in their pipe and smoke it!"

Gavin Bailey